Dynamo Dynamic in Attack and Bulls Bullish on Defense - Week 9 Ends in MLS

Taking a team to L.A. and winning 4-1 sounds incredible until you offer up the caveat that it wasn't against the Galaxy. The doormat this year seems to be shining earlier than last. The Houston Dynamo have dominated in dynamic fashion; wow - good on you Giles Barnes...

So how exactly did that powerful attack look compared to other four-goal outbursts this year - was it really that special?

In all the four-goal games this year, here's a quick breakdown on which teams accomplished that and then who's been tops in their Possession with Purpose and Expected Wins statistics for those games:

1. DC United vs FC Dallas
2. Sporting KC vs Montreal Impact
3. Seattle Sounders vs Colorado Rapids
4. Seattle Sounders vs Portland Timbers
5. New York Red Bulls vs Houston Dynamo
6. Houston Dynamo vs Chivas USA
7. Houston Dynamo vs New England Revolution
8. Portland Timbers vs Seattle Sounders
9. Vancouver Whitecaps vs New York Red Bulls

Tops in overall possession in those high scoring affairs was DC United at 67.04%. Tops in passing accuracy across the entire pitch was, again, DC United at 84.17%.

Tops in penetration percentage based upon passes completed in the final third vs. across the entire pitch was Houston vs. New England at 28.94%.

Tops in percentage of successful passes within the final third was Vancouver at 74.55%. Tops in shots taken compared to passes completed in the final third was Houston vs. Chivas USA at 39.13%.

Tops in shots on goal compared to shots taken was Vancouver at 71.43%; and finally... tops in goals scored vs. shots on goal was FC Dallas at 100% versus Houston.

So while Houston did well this weekend, and got their second four-goal game, it wasn't dominating compared to others - sorry Houston. It was three points (which is the target) but it wasn't really that special when viewing who you played against... more later on just how weak Chivas are in Possession with Purpose.

However viewed, Houston still had the best attacking outcome this week. So here's my PWP Attacking Player of the Week... Giles Barnes.

Moving on to the Defensive side of the pitch - FC Dallas saw red this past weekend and it wasn't just their kit, the Red Bulls kit or Dax McCarty's hair - it was Watson (elementary my dear) who got red.  

Things don't get better for Dallas either - they travel to Seattle for a midweek clash this Wednesday and then must fly down to San Jose for another on Saturday... wow.   Might we see Dallas drop three in a row?  I'm not sure and if you want to know my MLS picks for this week check here.

Anyhow, I digress - the PWP Defending Player of Week 9 is Jamison Olave...

So was that a worthy three points for New York and should it have been expected?  I'm not sure and here's some information to consider:

Below is a list of games, this year, where the first team listed got a Red Card:

1. DC United v FC Dallas
2. Columbus Crew v DC United
3. Columbus Crew v Sporting KC
4. Sporting KC v Columbus Crew
5. Sporting KC v New England Revolution
6. Sporting KC v Real Salt Lake
7. FC Dallas v Chivas USA
8. FC Dallas v DC United
9. FC Dallas v New York Red Bulls
10. FC Dallas v Portland Timbers
11. New York Red Bulls v Philadelphia Union
12. Houston Dynamo v FC Dallas
13. Houston Dynamo v Philadelphia Union
14. Chivas USA v Houston Dynamo
15. Chivas USA v San Jose Earthquakes
16. Chivas USA v Seattle Sounders
17. Chivas USA v Vancouver Whitecaps
18. Portland Timbers v Colorado Rapids
19. Portland Timbers v FC Dallas
20. Vancouver Whitecaps v Colorado Rapids
21. Colorado Rapids v Portland Timbers
22. Colorado Rapids v Sporting KC
23. Montreal Impact v Philadelphia Union
24. Chicago Fire v New England Revolution
25. Chicago Fire v Portland Timbers
26. San Jose Earthquakes v Colorado Rapids
27. Seattle Sounders v Columbus Crew

Twenty seven in all and only Colorado, New York, FC Dallas twice, Sporting KC and DC United won games yielding just a 22% chance of winning when seeing Red.

FC Dallas and Chivas USA lead MLS having received Red Cards in four games.  But here's where the more later comes in for Chivas - check this out.

FC Dallas (when short handed) have an Attacking PWP Index = 2.3976.  Their Defending PWP Index = 2.3914 and their Composite PWP Index = .1472.

By contrast, the Goats PWP Indices (at full strength this year) for Attacking = 2.1685; for Defending = 2.5446 and for Composite PWP = -.3760.  If I were a Chivas USA supporter that is a pretty depressing statistical output - FC Dallas, short-handed, are more productive in Attack and more effective in Defense than a full-strength Chivas... wow!

In circling back to my question on whether or not it should have been expected that New York would win?   Perhaps now, seeing how effective FC Dallas is, even when short-handed, it wasn't quite the cake-walk one would expect.  Key for Dallas these next 7 days will be the health of Diaz and the discipline to minimize Red Cards...

In closing...

After nine full weeks of MLS here's how things stand with my Composite PWP Index along with a few quick thoughts plus the Top 3 in Attacking and Top 3 in Defending.

LA Galaxy remain atop the table even with their 1-nil loss in Colorado - if Robbie Keane hits that PK, LA doesn't drop one point.  As for Columbus they drop down to 3rd with Sporting KC pushing up to spot #2.

Seattle, FC Dallas, Colorado and Columbus still stay in the top 6 while RSL continues to move forward - inching one space higher into 7th with New York and New England swapping places.

Note DC United dropped a few places and the bandwidth between the Revolution, United, Union, Whitecaps, and Portland got a bit tighter while Houston pushed forward past both Montreal and Chicago after thrashing Chivas.

Settling into last is Chivas, by a large margin, while the Fire and Impact hover on the low end as well...

Did a change in Managers (Head Coaches) really make a difference when looking at the End State? I'm not sure; for now it doesn't appear that either Klopas or Yallop have really changed things up when viewing the bottom line...

The top three teams in overall Attacking PWP (after 9 full weeks) are FC Dallas, Seattle Sounders, and Columbus Crew - can their approaches in possession continue to keep them there?

The top three teams in overall Defending PWP are Sporting KC, LA Galaxy and New England Revolution - some might offer elsewhere that it is surprising to see the Revolution somewhat higher in the table compared to others; is that surprising?

I don't think so... they have shown pedigree in defending for over a year now and with an improved attack it only stands to reason that their overall position finds them where they are...

Finally, have you made adjustments in your Fantasy teams yet?

If not and you are looking for a consistent (team back-four) you may want to add the Revolution to your list while spending a bit of change in leveraging Lloyd Sam from New York (cheap and cheerful) or latching on to Jaoa Plata if you haven't already...

Best, Chris

PWP-Pick-List Week 10 - weaving Expected Wins into my predictions this week...

A different approach this week just to see how things go.  Instead of leveraging my PWP Indices this week I'm going to leverage my Expected Wins analysis this week. Last week I was 5/9 so my running total on my PWP-Pick-List is 51%.

As background - most teams have had roughly an equal amount of home and away games - the Expected Wins #'s are the R2 values relative to playing either at home or on the road.  It's not 100% enough games but it'll do as a test of sorts...

The higher the number the more effective the team has been in overall Possession, Passing Accuracy, Penetration, Shots Taken, Shots on Goals and Goals Scored... the R2 below does not take into account the points earned (i.e. - those numbers do not reflect points won or lost in the league table)...

So in quick fashion (offering up only wins or losses - no draws) here's my picks for games beginning Wednesday and ending on Sunday:

Canadian Cup Vancouver visits Toronto:  Expected wins Toronto .9979 at home and Vancouver .9997 on the road.  Have most MLS teams twigged onto the 'mistake driven' attack by Toronto where possession really has no meaning?  I think so...  Nelson has, as I've intuited earlier this year, imported a European style of football to MLS. Chelsea has seen some success but has failed to take the EPL Championship.  Is this system good enough to get Toronto in to the Playoffs? I'm not sure  - for now I pick Vancouver winning. 

Houston at home to Columbus: Expected wins Houston .9993 at home and Columbus .9996 on the road - Columbus would normally be favored but with Will Trapp sitting on a Red Card I pick Houston winning.  Besides - it is still early days for Berhalter's system and Kinnear knows it well enough having just played Portland while also playing against Sporting the last few years...  I think the width of Houston is better...

Canadian Cup - Edmonton at home to Montreal:  Expected wins for Edmonton (no idea) and Montreal .9993 - Montreal wins given their budget and higher quality players... if they don't win - wow - they really aren't any good...

Seattle at home to FC Dallas:  Expected wins Seattle .9992 at home and FC Dallas .9990 on the road - Seattle wins; especially with Watson on a Red Card.

San Jose at home to Colorado:  Expected wins San Jose .9989 at home and Colorado .9996 on the road.  Colorado has done extremely well on the road this year averaging 1.25 goals per game - they have speed and the back-four for San Jose doesn't... why on earth Goodson continues to be a potential selection candidate for the World Cup I don't know...  maybe he proves me wrong this game.  For the USMNT sake I hope so...  for now Colorado wins...

Philadelphia at home to DC United:  Expected wins Philadelphia .9996 at home and DC United .9985 on the road; A rough patch for the Union of late and Hackworth is probably pretty hacked off by now - for no other reason than the Expected wins favors the Union I think Philadelphia wins...

Montreal at home to Sporting KC:  Expected wins Montreal .9979 at home and Sporting KC .9998 on the road - Montreal took advantage of a disjointed Union two weeks ago and they may consider have to play some stronger players to ensure a good result against Edmonton.  That and Sporting probably being very upset about dropping three points in New England sees Sporting KC  winning... besides, with Zusi and Besler being away with the USMNT later this year these early games really are pretty important for them.

New York Red Bulls at home to Chicago Fire:  Expected wins New York .9999 at home and Chicago .9996 on the road -The Red Bulls are almost at full strength - Cahill got minutes in their Red Card tainted win in Dallas and it's not likely they will be shut out against a Fire defense that's really watered down again this year - New York Red Bulls win...

Columbus at home to Vancouver:  Expected wins Columbus .9996 at home and Vancouver .9997 on the road - I'm convinced Columbus can play possession based football but can they do it consistently and can they take on a Vancouver team that is pretty powerful in attack?  I'm not sure they do that this next weekend.  So this might be an upset by many but I pick Vancouver to win...

San Jose at home to FC Dallas:  Expected wins San Jose  .9989 (subject to change given another home game earlier in the week) and FC Dallas (also with another away game earlier in the week) .9990 - I suppose San Jose has to put together a run of wins sooner or later - my guess is that it doesn't happen here - the attack, if Diaz is healthy is just too strong and the back-four, as noted before, is simply too slow - even with Watson having to sit with a Red Card against New York...  (edit - Watson sits against Seattle) FC Dallas wins...  that doesn't mean San Jose can't score in this game - Dallas remain weak at the back and that might be the telling downfall for Dallas again this year when push comes to shove...

Portland at home to LA Galaxy:  Expected wins Portland .9953 at home and LA .9999 on the road; LA has higher Expected Wins but Portland are improving and LA just lost on the road to Colorado - tough game here and if I had to pick a draw this week it would be here.  For now, unfortunately my Expected Wins indicates LA with a win but I will go with Portland to win.

Colorado at home to Chivas USA:  Expected wins Colorado .9983 at home and Chivas .9997 on the road.  Another one going against the grain based upon Expected wins - I just don't see Chivas winning this game no matter how well their attacking data points relate to each other...  besides speed kills and Colorado has speed up top with Brown... Colorado wins

New England at home to Seattle:  Expected wins New England .9990 at home and Seattle .9997 on the road.  A true test for New England in matching their solid defense against one of the most potent attacks in MLS - an early statement game, in my opinion for the Revolution.  They took it to Sporting KC against the odds at home not too long ago and this one will be a test as well.  For now I have more confidence in the attack of Seattle creating and scoring more goals than the defense giving away more goals to New England... Seattle wins...

Houston at home to Real Salt Lake:  Expected wins Houston .9993 at home and Real Salt Lake .9997 on the road.  Jaoa Plata has shown his value this season and his pairing with Saborio is simply dangerous - that coupled with the strong Diamond midfield makes RSL very hard to beat anywhere.  And with Houston having a game earlier this week I see RSL taking three points...

Best, Chris

"Hurried Passes" - Could this be a new Statistic in Soccer?

Aye... the NFL track 'hurried throws' -  why doesn't a Statistics agency involved in Soccer track "Hurried Passes"? I'll get to that but first I need to set some conditions.

If you've read my article on Expected Wins  (XpW) it seems reasonable that a teams' Passing Accuracy in the Final Third has great value in working towards generating quality shots taken that are more likely to be on goal and (therefore) more likely to go in.

So what activities does the defense take to mitigate successful passes (i.e. generate Unsuccessful Passes)?

Before digging in, I'm not the only one on American Soccer Analysis looking into Defensive Statistics; Jared Young has put together an interesting article on Individual Defensive Statistics that may be of interest.

Similarities in our work come from collecting 'like' defensive activities; Tackles Won, Clearances, Interceptions, etc...

Additional twists in my efforts will be to fold my Opponent team attacking statistics in with my team Defense Activities to see what correlations might be present.

My data comes from the first 71 games in MLS this year (142 events) and my source is the MLS Chalkboard.

Bottom line up front (BLUF) - however this data plays out it needs to make sense so here's my operating conditions on Team Defensive Activities in the Defending Final Third and which ones I will focus on that can be associated with an Unsuccessful Pass in the Final Third:

1. Recoveries - usually associated with 'loose balls' generated from some other activity like a deflection, rebound, or perhaps an unsuccessful throw-in that hits a head and deflects away (uncontrolled) that another player latches on to and then makes a move showing control the ball.  Therefore Recoveries are not counted as a specific defensive activity that would impede a successful pass - it is the resultant of another activity that impedes a successful pass.
2. Clearances - one of the better examples of a defensive activity that impedes a successful pass - especially those generated from crosses but not necessarily called a blocked cross.  Therefore Clearances will be counted as a specific defensive activity that impedes a successful pass.
3. Interceptions - pretty much self explanatory - an interception impedes a successful pass - therefore Interceptions will be counted as a specific defensive activity that impedes a successful pass.
4. Tackles Won - this is a defensive activity that strips the ball from an opponent - so it is a possession lost but not a defensive activity that impedes a successful pass.  It won't be counted as a defensive activity that impedes a successful pass.
5. Defender Blocks - this is a defensive activity that blocks a shot taken not a successful pass; therefore it won't be counted as a defensive activity that impedes a successful pass.
6. Blocked Crosess - clearly it is what it is; and since a cross is a pass it will be counted as a defensive activity that impedes a successful pass.

To summarize - Blocked Crosses, Interceptions and Clearances will be counted as defensive activities that should impact the volume of Unsuccessful Passes.

So what are the correlations between those combined Defensive Activities versus Unsuccessful Passes after 142 events?

Final Third Defensive Activities to Unsuccessful Passes = .6864

Final Third Defensive Activities to Unsuccessful Passes when the Defending Activities' Team Wins = .7833

Final Third Defensive Activities to Unsuccessful Passes when the Defending Activities' Team Draws = .6005

Final Third Defensive Activities to Unsuccessful Passes when the Defending Activities' Team Loses = .6378

In conclusion:

It seems pretty clear that Teams who win have more Defensive Activities, that in turn increase their Opponents' Unsuccessful Passes given the higher positive correlation than losing teams - in other words a team that wins generally executes more clearances, interceptions and blocked crosses to decrease the number of Successful Passes their Opponents make.

It also seems pretty clear that all those Defensive Activities don't account for the total of Unsuccessful Passes generated by the Opponent.  If they did then the correlation would be higher than .7833; it'd be near .9898 or so.

So what is missing from the generic soccer statistical community to account for the void in Unsuccessful Passes?

Is it another statistic like Tackles Won, Duals Won, Blocked Shots or Recoveries?

I don't think so - none of them generated a marked increase in the overall correlation of those three Activities already identified.

I think it is the physical and spatial pressure applied by the defenders as they work man to man and zone defending efforts.

In Closing...

To date I'm not aware of any statistics that log 'pressure applied' to the attacking team.  A good way to count that would be tracking how many seconds the defending team gives an opponent when they recieve the ball and take action.

My expectation is that the less time, given the opponent, the more likely they will hurry a pass that simply goes awry without any other statistic event to account for that other than - bad pass due to being hurried.

So in other words; like the NFL tracks hurried passes, I think that the Soccer statistical community should also track "hurried passes"...

I'm not sure that completely closes the gap between those three Defensive Activities and Unsuccessful Passes but it does seem to be a relevant statistic that can attempt to quantify panic in an attacker while also quantifying good physical and spatial pressure by a defender.  Two relevant items of interest to a coach in weighing the balance on who plays and who doesn't and who they might like to add to their team or perhaps put on loan/trade elsewhere.

The Official statistic that would get tracked for attacking players is 'Hurried Passes' and the statistic that would get tracked for defensive players is 'Passes Hurried'.

In addition - an increase in hurried passes can become a training topic that drives a Head Coach to develop tailor made passing or turning drills to minimize Hurried Passes (make space) while also providing a Head Coach statistical information to generate tailor made defensive drills that look to increase Passes Hurried.  I'd expect the level of the training drills to vary given the level of skill/professional development as well.

So how might someone define a "Hurried Pass"?  I'm not sure; there are plenty of smarter people out there in the soccer community than me - if I had to offer up a few suggestions it might be a pass that goes out of bounds given defensive pressure, or maybe a through-ball that goes amiss given pressure from a defender - in other words the timing of the delivery looked bad and given defensive pressure it was off-target.

However defined if judgment can be applied when identifying a pass as a key pass then it stands to reason that judgment can be applied to identify a bad pass as being bad because the defender hurried the attacker.

More to follow...

Best, Chris

Should away teams be more aggressive?

The Portland Timbers traveled to Houston on Sunday in desperate need of three points to get out of the cellar in the Western Conference. They played well in the first half, outshooting the Dynamo 8 – 7 en route to a 1 – 1 tie, while dominating possession. Then Portland came out in the second half much like many away teams do with a tie score, conservatively. The second-half shot charts to the right serve as an indication of the change in strategy.  

This conjured up a question that constantly bugs me. Should away teams go for wins more often when tied in the second half? Let's get right to the data. Here is chart summarizing the offensive aggression of away teams during gamestates when the score is tied and the teams are playing with the same number of players. The data presents the proportion of totals earned by the away team in both the first and second halves.

2013-14	Goals	xGoals	Shots
1st Half	44.8% (266)	42.3% (282.9)	43.4% (2948)
2nd Half	34.8% (184)	37.4% (168.6)	39.7% (1654)
P-value	0.017	---	0.007

The away team consistently garners 42% to 45% of these primary offensive stats during the first half, and then drops down to the 35%-to-40% range in the second half. For the proportions of goals and shots, those differences are statistically significant (there is no simple test for xGoals%, but it is probably statistically significant as well).

My instinct is that away teams are capable of playing in the second half as they do in the first half, and that these discrepancies are a product of conscious decision making by away coaches and players. Teams likely change strategy in the second half to preserve a tie. Playing more openly would ostensibly increase the chances of both a loss and win, while decreasing the chances of a tie. However, I would think based on the data above that it would increase the chances of a win more so than the chances of a loss. Since a win would earn the away team an extra two points, while a loss would cost it just one, my gut says teams should go for it more often.

Are away teams playing conservatively because mindless soccer conventionality tells them that it's okay to get one point on the road? Is this the self-detrimental risk aversion that plagues coaches in other sports, or are these numbers missing something that could justify the conservative play?

I can't say that I've proven anything, but these data suggest the former.

PWP - Who's Best and Worst after 8 Weeks

Another exciting week in Major League Soccer. Most of the headlines belong to New York, Seattle, DC United and New England as those four teams along with San Jose took 3 points; the instant measurement of success.

Duly noted, but a growing indicator in popularity is Possession with Purpose and the composite difference between how well an MLS team attacks versus defends across the broad spectrum of six key performance indicators in attack.  It's grown enough that after answering my question about Passing Accuracy last Thursday Caleb Porter looked to me, smiled,  and said "Possession with Purpose".

If you're not familiar with those Six Steps here they are in a nutshell:

1. Possession,
2. Passing Accuracy across the entire pitch,
3. Penetration (that percentage of passing a team successfully accomplishes within the Final Third),
4. Creation of Goal Scoring Opportunities (that percentage of shots taken relative to successful passing within the Final Third),
5. Putting those shots on goal, and
6. Goals scored

In case you missed it the relationship of the data points supporting PWP Analysis (after 102 games this year) is very strong regardless of winning, losing or drawing; with the Correlation for Winning being; .9898, drawing; .9827 and losing; .9564.  Click Expected Wins (XpW) to read more...

And if not convinced that this effort is taking hold elsewhere it appears Ted Knutson (@statsbomb) has taken up the gauntlet to see how opponents passing behaviors impact defensive activities in the European Leagues; you may find this article of interest as well.

It will be interesting to see what insights Ted can offer on this; especially given he's got three additional leagues to evaluate.  A great example coming up this week for MLS is the match between DC United and Portland.

DC United average over 18 crosses a game (home and away) playing a Diamond formation (6 of 7 games) - will that pattern continue against Portland or do we see a different defensive approach by Portland to manage (and reduce) that volume of crosses and thereby try to mitigate the strength of Eddie Johnson in the air???  (As noted on occasion by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle --- "The game is afoot" replied Holmes to his loyal companion, Watson.)

With that offered here's how the 19 teams in MLS compare to each other after eight weeks following the PWP guidelines:

The tale of the tape sees Seattle clear the first quarter-mile hurdle ahead of Sporting KC and Colorado.  A strong indication that they are serious contenders for the Shield - and yes you would think so given their position in the Standings and that comprehensive victory against Colorado.

But waiting in the shadows, with three games in hand, is a very potent team called LA Galaxy; nine points from those three games in hand puts them atop the West.  And of note is that LA currently have the best PWP Composite Index of any team in MLS.

Can you hold your breath until July 26th when these two teams meet for the first time on National TV?  And how about the last two games of the regular season - back to back Nationally televised games again... wow......

Talk about a story-line; and all that coming after the World Cup...

But back to the basics; DC United took great advantage of Zach Loyd and his 2nd Yellow (Red Card) in the 39'th minute; scoring four goals and icing the game with Fabian Espindola's second from an assist by Chris Rofle.

While I didn't see the game I did get to watch the MLSSoccer.com recap here...  seems a bit dubious that two yellows like that would garner a Red Card but on the first one Loyd was clearly out of position and his pulling back Espindola warranted a Yellow given how tight the Referee's have called games this year.

As for the second - well - any time you go studs up into a tackle you deserve a Yellow; shame on Loyd for two Yellows... and like Collin (Sporting KC) he put his team at a distinct disadvantage...

Other teams making moves this week included San Jose beating a woeful Chivas while Houston dropped two points by drawing, at home, to Portland. 

What was interesting to me about that game was how pedestrian, at times, the possession for Portland was.  Clearly there is an attempt by Caleb Porter to resurrect the successful possession based approach leveraged last year.

If a player like Gaston Fernandez can pair up more readily with the likes of Valeri and Nagbe then the Rose City should begin to feel better.  A great test comes this next weekend as they entertain another possession based team, DC United.

PWP Attacking Team of the week:  DC United

DC United had a superb 84% completion rating in Passing; much no doubt do to Loyd being sent off before the first half.  But hey, if you can't dominate a team when they are a man down then you're not a good team... DC United proved they were good this weekend and proved it in style.

As for Seattle; sadly they had to play against an 11 man Colorado.  If not it is likely they would have scored 6 or 7 goals against the Rapids...

Mastroeni will need to work his back-four hard as they prepare for LA this weekend.

PWP Attacking Player of Week 8: Fabian Espindola

Pretty comprehensive as Espindola took great advantage, as did his teammates, with Loyd's poor performance...

Another player getting big headlines this weekend was Clint Dempsey.  Here's how Clint lined up playing against the full strength Rapids:  99 touches, 55/59 (93% passing accuracy), 2 Key Passes and 2 Goals.  So a great game for Dempsey and a solid indication that his run of play over the last 3-4 games has been superb...

Other notable team attacking performances this week saw New York completely blast Houston 4-nil; that is two games running where New York matched or exceeded their PWP Index rating for last year - is it any wonder they've won the last two games?

As for bottom dwellers, Philadelphia was the only team in the bottom four without a Red Card; worst of the bunch this past week also included Chivas, Sporting KC, and FC Dallas.

Maybe it's just me but another reason why a team's Index shouldn't double count the impact of a Red or Yellow Card - when players get booked (regardless of red or yellow) does it impact overall team PWP performance?  I think so, and I'll look into that at the half-way point of the season.

I'll look at teams that lose with and without players that got booked; not sure what I'll find out but it should be interesting to see if it can be quantified to some extent.

PWP Defending Team of Week #8:  New England Revolution

A clean sheet is a clean sheet and so on... shutting out Sporting is probably easier at home than on the road - the rematches will be big games and Collin is probably pretty narked for that Red Card.  We shouldn't be surprised though; he's traditionally untimely in his tackles and with Opara (still injured?) Vermes may be hard pressed to find a suitable replacement.

Anyhow - the top play here was the back-four for New England shutting down Dwyer and Zusi... well done and not a surprise...

PWP Defending Player of Week 8: Chris Tierney

The toughest pick I had this week was selecting which defender got the award; both AJ Soares and Chris Tierney stood out over the others.

AJ offered up these defending attributes... 30 of 38 in passing for 79% accuracy, 69 touches, 1 tackle won, 2 blacked shots, 2 interceptions, 6 clearances and 3 recoveries.  Pretty close to the same outputs by Tierney - more appropriate though was the fact that the two of them partnered on the Revolution defensive left side, in their own final third in stopping 12 of 38 passes by Sporting KC.

In my view Tierney and Soares were far more productive for their team this weekend than Farrell - this isn't the first time my PWP Players or teams don't match what comes out of MLSSoccer.com - different views offer different outputs... both have value.

Congrats to San Jose for their clean sheet and kudo's for Montreal winning a game that a switched-on Union should have won hands down... wow - what a surprise that outcome was!

Stay tuned for my PWP-Pick-List Week 9;  I'm at 44% success rate and I took a clean hit across the cheek when Montreal and New England took three points while Real Salt Lake gave away two points in that complete melt down against Vancouver.... my, oh my, oh my...

Best, Chris

Expected Wins in MLS

Over the two and a half years I've been developing Possession with Purpose you've heard me go on about this game not just being about scoring goals it's about winning.  I don't mean that in the sense that you don't need to score goals to win; you do.  But what separates winning from losing statistics wise?  And if there is separation, what is it, and what value does it bring?

I'm not sure I have 'the' answers but I do have 'some' answers...

To begin here are the 7 primary data points I collect and calculate ratios with in my PWP Six Step Process analysis:

1. Passes Attempted Entire Pitch
2. Passes Completed Entire Pitch
3. Passes Attempted Final Third
4. Passes Completed Final Third
5. Shots Taken
6. Shots on Goal
7. Goals Scored

I collect these data points for every team, for every game; all 646 from last year and up to 102 (61 Games) so far this year.

In looking at the data this year the below diagram offers up the averages of those 7 data points, for all games, up to the end of Week 6. 

The blue bar is the overall Average for all games regardless of points earned, the green bar is the Average for all games where teams took three points, the amber bar is the Average where teams took one point, and the red bar is the Average where teams got nil-pwa.  

Facts as they exist today after 102 games in 2014:

The table just beneath the bar graph indicates the raw numbers (averages); for example the average Successful passes for teams that lose (in the Final Third) is 73.13; their average Shots taken is 13.39; their average Shots on goal is 4.10 and their average Goals scored is .58.

Here are the percentages derived by comparing the relationship of each of these points(part of my PWP analysis) working left to right:

• Teams that win average 50.30% Possession versus teams that lose average 49.70% Possession.
• Teams that win average 76% Passing Accuracy across the Entire Pitch. /// teams that lose average 74% Passing Accuracy across the Entire Pitch.
• Teams that win average 71% Passing Accuracy in the Final Third. /// teams that lose average 64% Passing Accuracy in the Final Third.
• Teams that win average 22% of all their Passes Attempted in the Final Third /// teams that lose average 25% of all their Passes Attempted in the Final Third.
• Teams that win average 17% Shots Taken vs Completed Passes in the Final Third. /// teams that lose average 18% Shots Taken vs Completed Passes in the Final Third.
• Teams that win average 40% Shots on Goal vs Shots Taken. /// teams that lose average 31% Shots on Goal vs Shots Taken.
• Teams that win average 45% Goals Scored vs Shots on Goal. /// teams that lose average 14% Goals Scored vs Shots on Goal.

Observations:

While 2% difference in overall Passing Accuracy might not mean much it should be noted as a reasonable indicator on how well a teams' Passing Accuracy will be in penetrating the Final Third.

That 2% difference translates this way.  When a team makes 500 pass attempts.  76% * 500 Passes equals = 380 Completed Passes.  74% * 500 Passes equals 370 Completed Passes.

Any one of those unsuccessful passes could be the pass that gets you that goal or leads to the Opponent making an interception (quick counter) that gets them a goal.

Perhaps it is easier to understand why some coaches say control of the game and possession adds value?  Those teams that are more accurate in their overall passing are more likely to win.

In looking at Passing Accuracy within the Final Third there is a clear difference between winners and losers; winning teams are 9% better in Passing Accuracy within the Final Third... this is not about volume of passes - it's about the accuracy of those passes.

To put that into perspective say a team attempts 100 passes in the Final Third; 71 of those passes (71%) are successful for the winning team whereas  only 64 (64%) are successful for the losing team.

That difference of 7 (within the tight confines of the Final Third) could make a BIG difference; those 7 extra completed passes could be 7 through-balls, key passes, or crosses that lead to a goal versus no goal.

Note that losing teams take more shots (on average) per pass completed (18%) than teams that win (17%).

Is that an indicator that the less effective team is trying to compensate for lower skill levels/overall passing accuracy by increasing their shots taken totals?  I think so.

And when looking at the ability of a winning team to put a shot taken on goal (a more accurate shot) the winning teams do that 9% better than losing teams.

And that initial accuracy then translates to a huge, if not inordinately large, difference between a team that wins versus loses; 45% of shots on goal are goals scored for winners versus 14% for losers.

Now for the second diagram and the R2 for the overall average, wins, draws, and losses with the backdrop lines being the real numbers for all 102 games this year..

The "x and y" axis represent the same things as they did in the first diagram.  The Blue, Green, Yellow and Red lines represent the averages 'in trend-line format' seen in the above diagram with their corresponding exponential correlations.  

I selected the Exponential Relationship as opposed to a Linear Relationship because I think it best represents the drop off in passes (in total) versus those just within the Final Third; the R2 will remain the same regardless.

Observations:

First off - all those lines are the 102 games worth of data that populate the diagram - it is that data that also formed the 'averages' for the first diagram...

That tight difference in R2 means there is a very tight margin of error between winning, losing and getting a draw; and if you've watched a game you know a single mistake can cost you three points.

However tight, there is a difference between the R2 for winning teams versus losing teams.  Is that statistical difference associated with those percentage differences indicated in the first diagram?

I think so, and while Possession (itself) is not "the" prime indicator on whether a team wins or loses it is "an" indicator that should be considered, when viewing overall passing accuracy within and outside the Final Third.

Perhaps the TV pundits will take more time to show better graphics where the Final Third data (in possession percentage) is separated out from the overall possession data?

Perhaps another view that may be helpful to others is the 'space available' that gets leveraged in creating that goal scoring opportunity?

I don't know if this data is representative for teams in Europe - but the data certainly supports that view for teams in Major League Soccer.

To reinforce the End State (winning) from a different viewpoint. 

Last year the top five teams in volume of shots taken versus passes completed in the Final Third were Chicago, (26%), Philadelphia (26%), FC Dallas (26%), Montreal (25%) and Columbus (23%).

Only one of those teams made the MLS Playoffs - Montreal.

This year the top three teams with the highest volume of shots taken versus passes completed in the Final Third are Montreal (28%), Chicago (28%) and San Jose (26%); two of those three teams are the current bottom dwellers in the Eastern and Western Conferences.

In all this I've not talked anything about defensive play... more later this year on how teams perform without the ball with specific focus on defensive efforts (collectively and by individual defensive action) within the Final Third.

For now I offer these questions:

• Do you think teams that defend better do so as a team (collectively) or is it individual actions like clearances, tackles, interceptions or recoveries that stand alone?
• And does the general formation they play to (advertised as 'the formation' in the MLS recaps) show results differently in how a defense performs?
• And does the relationship of the individual or collective defensive activities relate better to unsuccessful passes in the Final Third?

My intent will be to answer these questions, and more, as the data piles up (figure once the 17 game mark is reached, for most MLS teams, I will have enough to offer a reasonable view on what is and isn't of value.  With respect to the data discussed here - I have the 102 games here and the 646 games from last year.

When circling back to my overall PWP Composite Index - here it is put another way...

• The Attacking Index is the relationship those seven data points have with respect to the six steps in the PWP Process.
• The Defending Index is the relationship the Opponents seven data points have with respect to the six steps in the PWP Process.
• The Composite Index is the difference between those two Indices.
• This year, at this time, the overall Correlation of that analysis is an R2 of  .7658 - the R2 for Goal Differential is .8729.
• The R2 for Goals Scored is .5083 and the R2 for Attacking PWP is .5865
• The R2 for Goals Against is -.6754. and the R2 for Defending PWP is -.6225
• Bottom line here is that the PWP Composite Index has the 2nd highest R2.  With that you should have a better feel for what goes on behind the scenes to get there as opposed to just looking at Goal Differential.
• The more data points collected the more relevant the R2.
• How this plays out by the end of the season is unclear but as a reminder the overall PWP Composite Index was 90% accurate by the end of the 2013 in showing what teams would make the playoffs and what teams wouldn't.
• And two of the top three teams in the Composite PWP Index for 2013 were in the MLS Championship Finals...
• Starting for Week 8 my PWP-Pick-List will offer up my prognostications about a team either winning or losing... no more draws will be offered up as no one team ever goes into a regular season game wanting to get a draw.  A draw is good but the intent of a Head Coach is to win first.

In closing...

The repeatable statistic in this effort is wins, draws and losses...

Expected Wins is all about what it generally takes to win a game versus lose a game; it's not about getting a draw.

Expected Goals is an 'effect' relative to Expected Wins and the 'causing' relationship between those seven data points; i.e. the combined effort of a team as it possesses, passes and penetrates with purpose.  Hence my phrase offreed up some time ago "quality beats quantity".

And yes, set-pieces win games, and sometimes the team getting those and scoring from those does that against the run-of-play; I suppose that is why the R2 for wins, draws, and losses is so close.

However viewed, teams play to win and score goals.  Various strategies and tactics may be used depending upon location, game state, game conditions, team formations, player selections, or what's needed to move on, if in a knock-out or other tournament type condition.

It will be interesting to see how this analysis unfolds for the World Cup this year... more to follow... Here is the link on more to follow for MLS this year... Expected Wins 2 (92 games /// 184 events)

Bottom line at the Bottom:  For the MLS, every team wants to win every game - those teams that are more successful in winning are those teams that:

1. Have slightly more possession,
2. Have better passing accuracy, 
3. Have more patience in penetrating the Final Third,
4. Take slightly fewer shots,
5. Put more shots on goal and,
6. Score more goals.

Best, Chris

Looking for the model-busting formula

Well that title is a little contradictory, no? If there's a formula to beat the model then it should be part of the model and thus no longer a model buster. But I digress. That article about RSL last week sparked some good conversation about figuring out what makes one team's shots potentially worth more than those of another team. RSL scored 56 goals (by their own bodies) last season, but were only expected to score 44, a 12-goal discrepancy. Before getting into where that came from, here's how our Expected Goals data values each shot:

1. Shot Location: Where the shot was taken
2. Body part: Headed or kicked
3. Gamestate: xGD is calculated in total, and also specifically during even gamestates when teams are most likely playing more, shall we say, competitively.
4. Pattern of Play: What the situation on the field was like. For instance, shots taken off corner kicks have a lower chance of going in, likely due to a packed 18-yard box. These things are considered, based on the Opta definitions for pattern of play.

But these exclude some potentially important information, as Steve Fenn and Jared Young pointed out. I would say, based on their comments, that the two primary hindrances to our model are:

1. How to differentiate between the "sub-zones" of each zone. As Steve put it, was the shot from the far corner of Zone 2, more than 18 yards from goal? Or was it from right up next to zone 1, about 6.5 yards from goal?
2. How clean a look the shooter got. A proportion of blocked shots could help to explain some of that, but we're still missing the time component and the goalkeeper's positioning. How much time did the shooter have to place his shot and how open was the net?

Unfortunately, I can't go get a better data set right now so hindrance number 1 will have to wait. But I can use the data set that I already have to explore some other trends that may help to identify potential sources of RSL's ability to finish. My focus here will be on their offense, using some of the ideas from the second point about getting a clean look at goal.

Since we have information about shot placement, let's look at that first. I broke down each shot on target by which sixth of the goal it targeted to assess RSL's accuracy and placement. Since the 2013 season, RSL is second in the league in getting its shots on goal (37.25%), and among those shots, RSL places the ball better than any other team. Below is a graphic of the league's placement rates versus those of RSL over that same time period. (The corner shots were consolidated for this analysis because it didn't matter to which corner the shot was placed.)

RSL obviously placed shots where the keeper was not likely at: the corners. That's a good strategy, I hear. If I include shot placement in the model, RSL's 12-goal difference in 2013 completely evaporates. This new model expected them to score 55.87 goals in 2013, almost exactly the 56 they scored.

Admittedly, it isn't earth-shattering news that teams score by shooting at the corners, but I still think it's important. In baseball, we sometimes assess hitters and pitchers by their batting average on balls in play (BABIP), a success rate during specific instances only when the ball is contacted. It's obvious that batters with higher BABIPs will also have higher overall batting averages, just like teams that shoot toward the corners will score more goals.

But just because it is obvious doesn't mean that this information is worthless. On the contrary, baseball's sabermetricians have figured out that BABIP takes a long time to stabilize, and that a player who is outperforming or underperforming his BABIP is likely to regress. Now that we know that RSL is beating the model due to its shot placement, this begs the question, do accuracy and placement stabilize at the team level?

To some degree, yes! First, there is a relationship between a team's shots on target totals from the first half of the season and the second half of the season. Between 2011 and 2013, the correlation coefficient for 56 team-seasons was 0.29. Not huge, but it does exist. Looking further, I calculated the differences between teams' expected goals in our current model and teams' expected goals in this new shot placement model. The correlation from first half to second half on that one was 0.54.

To summarize, getting shots on goal can be repeated to a small degree, but where those shots are placed in the goal can be repeated at the team level. There is some stabilization going on. This gives RSL fans hope that at least some of this model-busting is due to a skill that will stick around.

Of course, that still doesn't tell us why RSL is placing shots well as a team. Are their players more skilled? Or is it the system that creates a greater proportion of wide-open looks?

Seeking details that may indicate a better shot opportunity, I will start with assisted shots. A large proportion of assisted shots may indicate that a team will find open players in front of net more often, thus creating more time and space for shots. However, an assisted shot is no more likely to go in than an unassisted one, and RSL's 74.9-percent assist rate is only marginally better than the league's 73.1 percent, anyway. RSL actually scored about six fewer goals than expected on assisted shots, and six more goals than expected on unassisted shots. It becomes apparent that we're barking up the wrong tree here.*

Are some teams more capable of not getting their shots blocked? If so then then those teams would likely finish better than the league average. One little problem with this theory is that RSL gets it shots blocked more often than the league average. Plus, in 2013, blocked shot percentages from the first half of the season had a (statistically insignificant) negative correlation to blocked shots in the second half of the season, suggesting strongly that blocked shots are more influenced by randomness and the defense, rather than by the offense which is taking the shots.

Maybe some teams get easier looks by forcing rebounds and following them up efficiently. Indeed, in 2013 RSL led the league in "rebound goals scored" with nine, where a rebounded shot is one that occurs within five seconds of the previous shot. That beat their expected goals on those particular shots by 5.6 goals. However, earning rebounds does not appear to be much of a skill, and neither does finishing them. The correlation between first-half and second-half rebound chances was a meager--and statistically insignificant--0.13, while the added value of a "rebound variable" to the expected goals model was virtually unnoticeable. RSL could be the best team at tucking away rebounds, but that's not a repeatable league-wide skill. And much of that 5.6-goal advantage is explained by the fact that RSL places the ball well, regardless of whether or not the shot came off a rebound.

Jared did some research for us showing that teams that get an extremely high number of shots within a game are less likely to score on each shot. It probably has something to do with going for quantity rather than quality, and possibly playing from behind and having to fire away against a packed box. While that applies within a game, it does not seem to apply over the course of a season. Between 2011 and 2013, the correlation between a teams attempts per game and finishing rate per attempt was virtually zero.

If RSL spends a lot of time in the lead and very little time playing from behind--true for many winning teams--then its chances may come more often against stretched defenses. RSL spent the fourth most minutes in 2013 with the lead, and the fifth fewest minutes playing from behind. In 2013, there was a 0.47 correlation between teams' abilities to outperform Expected Goals and the ratio of time they spent in positive versus negative gamestates.

If RSL's boost in scoring comes mostly from those times when they are in the lead, that would be bad news since their Expected Goals data in even gamestates was not impressive then, and is not impressive now. But if the difference comes more from shot placement, then the team could retain some of its goal-scoring prowess. 8.3 goals of that 12-goal discrepancy I'm trying to explain in 2013 came during even gamestates, when perhaps their ability to place shots helped them to beat the expectations. But the other 4-ish additional goals likely came from spending increased time in positive gamestates. It is my guess that RSL won't be able to outperform their even gamestate expectation by nearly as much this season, but at this point, I wouldn't put it past them either.

We come to the unsatisfying conclusion that we still don't know exactly why RSL is beating the model. Maybe the players are more skilled, maybe the attack leaves defenses out of position, maybe it spent more time in positive gamestates than it "should have." And maybe RSL just gets a bunch of shots from the closest edge of each zone. Better data sets will hopefully sort this out someday.

*This doesn't necessarily suggest that assisted shots have no advantage. It could be that assisted shots are more commonly taken by less-skilled finishers, and that unassisted shots are taken by the most-skilled finishers. However, even if that is true, it wouldn't explain why RSL is finishing better than expected, which is the point of this article.

MLS PWP through 6 Weeks: Does the wheat begin to separate from the chaff?

You might not think that six weeks is enough to begin to categorize what teams are performing well and what teams aren't - I may even agree with you to an extent, but here's the thing: we're six weeks in, and patterns are beginning to take shape. Instead of just showing the combined Index for all 19 teams I'm going to split them up into the Eastern and Western Conferences to show a different view.  And here's my link to the Introduction to PWP.

Here's all the Eastern Conference teams up after 6 weeks (note some teams have yet to play six games):

Observations:

The intent here is to offer up a graphic that shows which teams are performing better in attack than their opponents so far. No intent here to write off anyone, yet... too early for that with 28 games and a maximum of 84 points still being available.

Let's just say that Berhalter and Vermes have their teams in top gear - while Hackworth, Olsen, Petke, Heaps and Nelson are still fine tuning... as for Klopas, Yallop and Kinnear performance needs to get better and I'm sure they already know that.

As a reminder - this Index is the difference between how well a team executes the six primary steps of Possession with Purpose versus how well their opponents execute those same steps against them. A negative number thus means that, on average, the opponent is performing those six steps better (collectively) than that team.

I'm not a betting man yet on this Index, but if you think the odds are good that Columbus wins the Eastern Conference, then a flutter of $20/20 BPS might be a worthy chance. Spreading your bet across the field with Sporting Kansas City and one or two other teams might be worthy as well... for now I'm not seeing Montreal make it; but that's just me.

On to the Western Conference:

Observations:

Like the Eastern Conference, it's too early to go too deep, and the high flying teams play each other three times this year just like those guys back east; when LA and FC Dallas square off it should be interesting...  all the while Colorado and Seattle continue to get better, with Vancouver and the ever present/haunting Real Salt Lake looking to make a strong mid-year run.

As for Portland - times are hard early on this year and a 15-game unbeaten streak would be a much needed does of medicine to put them into the thick of things. How San Jose and Chivas cope remains to be seen - and given the styles I've seen from them this year, it appears crosses are their primary way to penetrate.

If you're a betting guy, I'm even less sure about the West than the east at this point - for now spreading the bets where the odds are good seems a likely choice with LA probably being the front-runner... is this the year where big money shows value in the West, like New York garnered last year in the East?

As for the top performing PWP attacking teams in general; here's how they compare against each other across all of MLS:

Observations:

While there is no sure thing if you're looking for teams who are more likely to put goals past their opponents in multiples it's likely the top 5-10 teams are those that can - whether they prevent the same number of goals is a different story.

Note Real Salt Lake is in the top 7 here but sits in 6th place overall in the Western Conference PWP - for me that indicates Real are operating pretty much like they did last year; score goals and work harder than your opponent to score more goals while relying on your defense to keep you in the game... without that stoppage time goal by Edu this past weekend it's likely RSL would have been higher up the Western Conference PWP Index.

Note also that Sporting remain in the top ten for Attack - they've always been viewed as a great defending side - the higher up the attacking scale they reach the more likely they will be balanced for another run at the Championship.

On the other end - New England and Toronto are bottom dwellers here but they are getting points; why so low?  In working their own style Toronto have started the season averaging just over 40% of the possession with just 64% accuracy in their overall passing - what we are seeing is timely penetration against opponents who are out of shape, position wise (for the most part) - recall also Defoe has been injured too.

As for New England - their accuracy and possession numbers are solid - where things drop off are their ability to create shots taken (2nd lowest in MLS so far this year) and their ability to convert those shots taken into shots on goal and goals scored.  Their goals scored percentage based on shots on goal is just 12.22%.  That is the lowest goal scoring conversion rate in MLS - and a whopping 56% points lower than FC Dallas - who have converted (on average) 68.33% of their shots on goal to goals scored...

Other notable pieces of information - both Columbus and LA are averaging better than 80% accuracy in 'all' passing totals; the teams doing the best in penetrating based upon total passes are New England (29.49%) with Houston, Columbus, Philadelphia and Chicago all hovering around 22%.  The team creating the most shots given their final third penetration is San Jose at 26%, Toronto at 25% and Chicago at 25% - can you say counter and direct attack (be it on the ground or in the air)?

The teams most successful in putting shots on goal compared to shots taken are Colorado (42%) Real Salt Lake (42%) Vancouver (41%) and FC Dallas at (40%)...

Moving on to the Composite PWP Defending Index...

Observations:

Not much separates the good from the not so good and perhaps the ugly; and it's too early to label anyone as really ugly.

For now the team most successful in holding their opponents to low passing accuracy percentages are Sporting KC (opponents just 70.25% accurate per game) with Real holding opponents to 71.97% accuracy, DC United 71.98% accuracy and Philadelphia holding opponents to 71.55% accuracy.

As for allowing penetration based upon overall passes; opponents of San Jose penetrate over 24% of the time while Vancouver also permits opponents to penetrate about 24% of the time.

In opponents completing final third passes the team most successful in limiting completed passes in their defending third is LA at 12% while Toronto's defense offers up a stingy 13.57%.

The teams allowing the most shots taken versus passes completed in their defending third are Chivas at 41.65% and New York at 40.55% - you wonder why I keep harping on New York that's why... they just don't defend that well in their own final third...

Teams yielding the most goals scored per shots on goal, per game, are Chivas at 45% (begging the question: why couldn't Portland score more than one goal?), Philadelphia at 43% while LA Galaxy allows a stingy 17% of their opponents shots on goal converted into goals scored.

In closing...

Just week 6, but patterns continue to develop - as the season unfolds I'll do my best to offer up these tidbits for your consideration.

For the future, I have a post coming up that speaks to formations and defensive activities - still need about 4 more weeks for that one to have enough data to offer some observations on it.

All the best, Chris

You can follow me on twitter at @chrisgluckpwp

USMNT - My thoughts after 2-2 Draw with Mexico

If you're like me you were pretty impressed with the first half Wednesday evening as Jurgen Klinsmann deployed a Diamond 4-4-2 in the truest sense - narrow and focused down the middle with the intent to manage the wings by channeling things to the middle. It worked really well in the first half. To give you a comparison on how well it went, here's a table on their Possession with Purpose (six steps in Attack) in the first half compared to that of the second half with the average for MLS Teams in 2013.

But before offering the here's a link to what PWP is all about in case you've missed it before.

Team	Possession Percentage	Passing Accuracy Percentage	Penetration Percentage	Creation of Shots Taken based upon Penetration Percentage	Shots on Goal compared to Shots Taken Percentage	Goals Scored compared to Shots on Goal Percentage
USMNT 1st Half	59%	85%	13%	14%	80%	50%
USMNT 2nd Half	41%	80%	18%	25%	14%	0%
Mexico 1st Half	41%	75%	21%	5%	0%	0%
Mexico 2nd Half	59%	80%	23%	35%	44%	25%
MLS 2013 Average for Comparison	50%	76%	22%	20%	34%	30%

Observations:

I won't offer up anything new here that I didn't already offer on twitter during the match but in case you missed some of those streaming thoughts here they are without limiting my words to the format of twitter.

Bradley and Beckerman needed to be the fulcrum between the defending side of the pitch and the attacking side of the pitch if that Diamond 4-4-2 is to be successful - I'd offer that most would agree they were (at least in the first half).

In considering I had never seen Michael Parkhurst in a left fullback position I opined that the way this team lined up some good chances would come down the right side with Beltran running overlaps or supporting Zusi in deep penetration on the wings.

I'd offer that was also the case in the first half - nothing better as an example than the goal Wondolowski had working from the Zusi cross that Bradley flicked on for Wondolowski to poke home.

What was surprising to me (a very welcome surprise) was how effective Michael Parkhurst was in the first half working the left side with his own mix of penetration combined with Davis --- I really did enjoy seeing that Wednesday evening and support like that from Michael reinforces his ball handlling skills - and - In my view makes him a very credible selection to start at Centerback along with Matt Besler.

If you didn't already know Michael Parkhurst was my PWP Defender of the Week #1 and here's that article supporting that analysis.

I'm not sure why I've never rated Omar Gonzalez highly but I don't - maybe it's his defensive positioning that makes me nervous but I'm a defensive minded guy in football and while there are good points in having a CB who can attack the box on set-pieces my view is that they are first and foremost on the pitch to (STOP) the opponent from scoring - all else is a bonus after that.

As for the goals against in the second half - other pundits have already offered up the Capt. Obvious here that Gonzalez was directly accountable for both goals scored by Mexico - so I ask (rhetorically) did he really add value to this squad in that game in his primary role and if not - who's better?

That's not a question for me to answer but I think it is a question Jurgen Klinsmann needs to ask himself and his new staff...

Like many things in life, I'm not particularly fond of folks who offer up a problem (be it real or perceived) without also coming up with a solution/recommendation to that problem.  So with that here are my options knowing that some players are simply not going to get selected that haven't already played under Jurgen recently.

Goodson - Not sure here either - I personally have not seen him enough to offer a view that (in my view) has merit - he does well for San Jose but he didn't get particularly good minutes overseas with what I feel and think is a top rated club.  More information needed.

Parkhurst - I have seen him probably as little as I have seen Goodsen but in those few short games (and his impressive showing to me on Wednesday evening) it is clear he has the pace to cope with the wings and also has the passing accuracy and understanding of a broader role in positional play to make an very effective CB (starting CB) provided he can handle the more physical side of the game when teams include a more traditional #9 who plays more with his back to goal than trying to run on to through balls.

Cameron - His time overseas is seeing the game as a right back for Stoke - is that mix the right mix to settle in alongside Besler - and how is that chemistry going to take shape?  He has positional awareness of how positional play works down the wings so that adds great value - just like that in seeing Parkhurst play the left side Wednesday evening.

For me Parkhurst is a first option to pair with Besler but my view is limited - call it a gut instinct - but do folks really expect a CB who has played as long as Gonzalez to say in passing he needs to be more dominant in his role as a CB in protecting the box?  Wow - I hope not.  That is something a CB should KNOW and understand from day 1...  oh my...

Perhaps a more compelling question is how long has this weakness (lack of being switched-on to the true purpose of a CB) been or not been recognized by the USMNT staff?

And then to throw a teammate under the bus - bollocks - it just reinforces my own views that Gonzalez is not the right choice to represent the USMNT as a starting CB in the World Cup.

A winning World Cup team must be linked in and switched-on to roles and responsibilities for 90+ minutes for at least 3 games in 8 days??? in order to advance - and then it just gets tougher and tougher... that speaks to having resilience in a squad and throwing a teammate under the bus is not an example of resilience - it represents a shirking of responsibility.

As for Green - as noted in my finishing tweets for the match - in my view Green is still green - that was worthy and notable of Klinsmann to put him in as a way to begin his trail of caps - but as an option going forward now?  Unless his attitude is so positive and infectious for others I just don't see him having any role of substance this World Cup - the hype is what it is - hype...

Tough question here for those who've been around footy for some time.  If a real stud, do you really think Green would miss an opportunity to play for Germany in a World Cup or European Championship in the very near term?

The pedigree with the German side is simply to strong to even think for a second that (if a starter there) he would ditch that opportunity to be a starter here).  Like it or not the USMNT's progress has not made it that far in being that good...  if you think they have your emotions are overwhelming your senses.  Bringing Green into the side is more about 2018 than 2014; and for that I tip my hat to Klinsmann...

In closing...

A welcome sight to see the USMNT open in a diamond 4-4-2 and the pieces to that puzzle looked pretty good when considering who started and who didn't.  I would offer that style of play speaks to some of the stronger styles we see in MLS - is that the intent of Klinsmann - to stamp a particular style of play that suits the stronger and more possession oriented sides in the MLS who are also known for closing down and giving the opponent very little space and time to work with?

I think so - and yes - width is critical to manage when working a narrow approach and the right pieces need to be there to do that.  Evidence of that was very clear Wednesday evening - as the second half opened and the subs began to rotate for the USMNT the Mexican side went from offering up just 8 crosses in the first half to a total of 23 crosses for the second half.

Clearly the change in players on both sides, to include complacency and fatigue of the USMNT, directly impacted and influenced the team attacking style of Mexico.

In looking towards the final selection Klinsmann has some issues to wrestle with - how does he balance the chemistry of the "MLS Players" playing together versus those guys who play abroad - how does Altidore fit into a Diamond 4-4-2? 

He's been laboring with Sunderland this year and I'm not familiar enough with that team to know what system they operate - but given their position in the League Table it would appear they are not very good in scoring goals - which for me tends to indicate their midfield isn't that strong.  To paraphrase Harrison on this one - Jozy doesn't have the right complimentary pieces to go with his skill set...

And with a trend of American players returning stateside might we see Jozy make a transfer move similar to Bradley and Dempsey this summer?  Hard to say now but if the USMNT chemistry continues to mature, using a majority of players from MLS, it just might mean the most effective move for him is a return to America.

Before signing off I have one final postulate for consideration.  In seeing how the game went Wednesday evening - has anyone considered that - given it was a friendly - the intent of the second half might have also included studying how Mexico may adjust, in pitch activity, to the Diamond 4-4-2, in order for Klinsmann to gather data on how other opponents might adjust (real time) in the World Cup?

This also provides Klinsmann some real data to evaluate on ways he might counter the opponents counter...  I wouldn't put it past him - especially since the game wasn't a real win or lose game of consequence...

That's all for me for now... More to follow on twitter as I join the crowd at Providence Park for the Cascadia clash between Seattle and Portland.

Introducing Expected Goals 2.0 and its Byproducts

Many of the features listed below from our shot-by-shot data for 2013 and 2014 can be found above by hovering over the "Expected Goals 2.0" link. Last month, I wrote an article explaining our method for calculating Expected Goals 1.0, based only on the six shot locations. Now, we have updated our methods with the cool, new, sleek Expected Goals 2.0.

Recall that in calculating expected goals, the point is to use shot data to effectively suggest how many goals a team or player "should have scored." This gives us an idea of how typical teams and players finish, given certain types of opportunities, and then allows us to predict how they might do in the future. Using shot locations, if teams are getting a lot of shots from, say, zone 2 (the area around the penalty spot), then they should be scoring a lot of goals.

Expected Goals 2.0 for Teams

Now, in the 2.0 version, it's not only about shot location. It's also about whether or not shots are being taken with the head or the foot, and whether or not they come from corner kicks. Data from the 2013 season suggest that not only are header and corner kick shot totals predictive of themselves (stable metrics), but they also lead to lower finishing rates. Thus, teams that fare exceptionally well or poorly in these categories will now see changes in their Expected Goals metrics.

Example: In 2013, Portland took a low percentage of its total shots as headers (15.4%), as well as a low percentage of its total shots from corner kicks (12.3%). Conversely, it allowed higher percentages of those types of shots to its opponents (19.2% and 15.0%, respectively). Presumably, the Timbers' style of play encourages this behavior, and this is why the 2.0 version of Expected Goal Differential (xGD) liked the Timbers more so than the 1.0 version. 

We also calculate Expected Goals 2.0 contextually--specifically during times periods of an even score (even gamestate)--for your loin-tickling pleasure.

Expected Goals 2.0 for Players

Another addition from the new data we have is that we can assess players' finishing ability while controlling for the various types of shots. Players' goal totals can be compared to their Expected Goals totals in an attempt to quantify their finishing ability. Finishing is still a controversial topic, but it's this type of data that will help us to separate out good and bad finishers, if those distinctions even exist. Even if finishing is not a repeatable skill, players with consistently high Expected Goals totals may be seen as players that get themselves into dangerous positions on the pitch--perhaps a skill in its own right.

The other primary player influencing any shot is the main guy trying to stop it, the goalkeeper. This data will someday soon be used to assess goalkeepers' saving abilities, based on the types of shot taken (location, run of play, body part), how well the shot was placed in the goal mouth, and whether the keeper gave up a dangerous rebound. Thus for keepers we will have goals allowed versus expected goals allowed.

Win Expectancy

Win Expectancy is something that exists for both Major League Baseball and the National Football League, and we are now introducing it here for Major League Soccer. When the away team takes the lead in the first 15 minutes, what does that mean for their chances of winning? These are the questions that can be answered by looking at past games in which a similar scenario unfolded. We will keep Win Expectancy charts updated based on 2013 and 2014 data.